On What Evidence?
A drunk person can't give consent, legally speaking. The fact that millions of such acts go unpunished every day is no excuse. He admitted to having sex with her, she was drunk, that is rape. 24.159.24.36 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That depeneds how drunk we're talking, now doesn't it? Something else we don't know.
If he had sex with her while she was so drunk as to not being able to consent that could be rape.
The article doesn't state how many hours had passed between her being drunk and the sexual intercourse.
I personally consider violent rape to be a more heinous crime than murder, as the victim is left alive, and "date rape" to be a close second, but in this instance, with the few facts reported, I would have to come out onside of the male. Females can and do make false "date rape" allegations. Because of the inhumanity of the crime, men may be judged guilty on the thinnest of evidence.
Without details of the IPCC report however, all we post here is merely conjecture.
I agree with every word of that. The Scots not proven verdict could be made for rape cases, it's so apt. I'm tempted to see if the Commission has released it's report and, if not, to use Freedom of Information to try and force them to cough it up. With retractions, of course, to protect identities and whatnot, but still...
The question is so drunk. It could be that that's the reason the CPS wimped out - and if that's the only reason, it would be bottling it.
Rape v. murder - I've previously called for comparable sentencing guidelines and laws. That, for my friends South of the border, means a mandatory life sentence with a 15-year recommended minimum before aggravating or mitigating factors; it's fairly similar for the other UK jurisdictions. Two rapes would be looking at 25-30 years, and three or more could well land you the whole life tariff - a rare example of English law I'd like imported to Scotland.
Conjecture is all we have, owing to the total lack of information in the media. That, to me, is unacceptable.
I know nothing of the specifics of the case, but it's possible that the police had evidence against him that proved he was a rapist, but was inadmissible in court for technical reasons, leading them to believe that a conviction would not be possible.
If inadmissable, that brings us right back to the employment tribunal - admit it or re-employ him. This tale twists no matter how it's looked at....
It's a punishable (I dont know about sackable) offence even if the sex was consentual. I understand what you're saying about inadmissable evidence that means the court case didn't hold against him, but if the entire MET knew he was guilty then his position would be untennable